You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cloudstack.apache.org by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com> on 2017/11/10 19:01:50 UTC
hypervisor choice
I have been using CentOS for a long time but they seem to have screwed
up the recent updates to CentOS 7 to the point where after updating to
the latest version (originally build 514 and now 683), the system no
longer boots. I have to boot to build 327 which runs fine.
The idea of having a server that fails after updating is not in my
comfort zone.
I like the UI of CentOS but it has a lot of extras that I am sure are
not required for the VM host.
What is the best choice for a OS to run on the hardware that will
support Cloudstack and CentOS as a VM?
Thoughts?
Ron
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: hypervisor choice
Posted by Ron Wheeler <rw...@artifact-software.com>.
Thanks for your input.
I really like CentOS as well. Partly because I have been using it for so
long. If I recall, I went from SCO Unix to Mandrake to CentOS (4?).
I am baffled about what changed between the 327 release and the 514
release. The latest 693 release still gives me the same problem.
It is frustrating to have a machine that boots and runs just fine with
327 release of CentOS7 but panics if it tries to boot with the latest.
I have this on several machines of differing age. They are all AMD
processors but the motherboards are different of course.
The installation CD (ISO) of the 514 versions will not even startup so
it has to be something pretty fundamental.
RedHat has opened up their developer program so I might start to use
RedHat to see if the problem can be identified in that community.
Thanks again for responding with your advice.
Ron
On 13/11/2017 4:36 AM, Dag Sonstebo wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> We regularly use CentOS6 and 7 for KVM, and have never had an issue with non-booting hosts – but then again our workloads are lab and testing based hence seldom get upgraded and seldom run for more than a few weeks.
>
> Saying that – we only ever use the CentOS minimal install, never with GUI – as you say it’s surplus to requirements in most situations and comes with a lot of baggage. If you need GUI tools like virt-manager you can either run it on a remote host or do a minimal local install and open it up over a SSH forwarded X11-session – which all in all means you don’t have to install the full GUI on each host.
>
> With regards to Ubuntu – Eric has given a good rundown (personally I have no issues with Ubuntu – I just find CentOS simpler and reliable).
>
> Regards,
> Dag Sonstebo
> Cloud Architect
> ShapeBlue
>
> On 10/11/2017, 19:37, "Eric Lee Green" <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2017 11:01 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> > I have been using CentOS for a long time but they seem to have screwed
> > up the recent updates to CentOS 7 to the point where after updating to
> > the latest version (originally build 514 and now 683), the system no
> > longer boots. I have to boot to build 327 which runs fine.
> >
> > The idea of having a server that fails after updating is not in my
> > comfort zone.
> The other popular choice if you are using KVM on Linux is Ubuntu LTS.
> The current LTS version is 16.04 which is supported until 2021.
> Cloudstack runs fine on Ubuntu LTS, but configuring the network may be a
> bit cumbersome for someone accustomed to the Centos
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts mechanism.
>
> In my experience over the years Ubuntu has not been quite as stable as
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux, *but*, that may have changed with RHEL7/Centos
> 7, where they appear to break things regularly between minor version
> updates in order to "improve" the system. I, too, ended up with the
> issue of one of my Centos 7 servers not rebooting after an update, and
> having to boot it back to an older kernel. I ended up re-formatting and
> re-installing that server entirely and restoring the system
> configuration from backups.
>
> At this point I'd suggest remaining with KVM on Linux as your
> hypervisor. It appears to perform better overall than Xen or vSphere and
> the cost-effectiveness overall cannot be beat, especially if you are
> buying hardware in bulk and using an automated mechanism to deploy your
> hardware and the software load upon it so that you don't have to manage
> it individually.
>
> If you are looking for overall reliability (at a cost), vSphere is of
> course "the" reliable choice (I have some ESXi hosts that have been up
> for over 500 days, and the last time they went down was during a planned
> outage to rearrange the racks), but it is very picky about its hardware
> and likely won't like your current hardware. It can also become somewhat
> expensive as you add hosts to your vSphere cluster, which is the basis
> of a CloudStack pod (rather than the individual hosts). It's also as
> much as 10% slower by my measurements under many workloads because they
> make numerous decisions that improve reliability at the expense of
> performance. Still, for customers that value reliability above all else,
> vSphere is a brick -- reliable and pretty much bullet-proof.
>
>
>
>
> Dag.Sonstebo@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
Re: hypervisor choice
Posted by Dag Sonstebo <Da...@shapeblue.com>.
Hi Ron,
We regularly use CentOS6 and 7 for KVM, and have never had an issue with non-booting hosts – but then again our workloads are lab and testing based hence seldom get upgraded and seldom run for more than a few weeks.
Saying that – we only ever use the CentOS minimal install, never with GUI – as you say it’s surplus to requirements in most situations and comes with a lot of baggage. If you need GUI tools like virt-manager you can either run it on a remote host or do a minimal local install and open it up over a SSH forwarded X11-session – which all in all means you don’t have to install the full GUI on each host.
With regards to Ubuntu – Eric has given a good rundown (personally I have no issues with Ubuntu – I just find CentOS simpler and reliable).
Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
On 10/11/2017, 19:37, "Eric Lee Green" <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2017 11:01 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> I have been using CentOS for a long time but they seem to have screwed
> up the recent updates to CentOS 7 to the point where after updating to
> the latest version (originally build 514 and now 683), the system no
> longer boots. I have to boot to build 327 which runs fine.
>
> The idea of having a server that fails after updating is not in my
> comfort zone.
The other popular choice if you are using KVM on Linux is Ubuntu LTS.
The current LTS version is 16.04 which is supported until 2021.
Cloudstack runs fine on Ubuntu LTS, but configuring the network may be a
bit cumbersome for someone accustomed to the Centos
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts mechanism.
In my experience over the years Ubuntu has not been quite as stable as
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, *but*, that may have changed with RHEL7/Centos
7, where they appear to break things regularly between minor version
updates in order to "improve" the system. I, too, ended up with the
issue of one of my Centos 7 servers not rebooting after an update, and
having to boot it back to an older kernel. I ended up re-formatting and
re-installing that server entirely and restoring the system
configuration from backups.
At this point I'd suggest remaining with KVM on Linux as your
hypervisor. It appears to perform better overall than Xen or vSphere and
the cost-effectiveness overall cannot be beat, especially if you are
buying hardware in bulk and using an automated mechanism to deploy your
hardware and the software load upon it so that you don't have to manage
it individually.
If you are looking for overall reliability (at a cost), vSphere is of
course "the" reliable choice (I have some ESXi hosts that have been up
for over 500 days, and the last time they went down was during a planned
outage to rearrange the racks), but it is very picky about its hardware
and likely won't like your current hardware. It can also become somewhat
expensive as you add hosts to your vSphere cluster, which is the basis
of a CloudStack pod (rather than the individual hosts). It's also as
much as 10% slower by my measurements under many workloads because they
make numerous decisions that improve reliability at the expense of
performance. Still, for customers that value reliability above all else,
vSphere is a brick -- reliable and pretty much bullet-proof.
Dag.Sonstebo@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
Re: hypervisor choice
Posted by Eric Lee Green <er...@gmail.com>.
On 11/10/2017 11:01 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
> I have been using CentOS for a long time but they seem to have screwed
> up the recent updates to CentOS 7 to the point where after updating to
> the latest version (originally build 514 and now 683), the system no
> longer boots. I have to boot to build 327 which runs fine.
>
> The idea of having a server that fails after updating is not in my
> comfort zone.
The other popular choice if you are using KVM on Linux is Ubuntu LTS.
The current LTS version is 16.04 which is supported until 2021.
Cloudstack runs fine on Ubuntu LTS, but configuring the network may be a
bit cumbersome for someone accustomed to the Centos
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts mechanism.
In my experience over the years Ubuntu has not been quite as stable as
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, *but*, that may have changed with RHEL7/Centos
7, where they appear to break things regularly between minor version
updates in order to "improve" the system. I, too, ended up with the
issue of one of my Centos 7 servers not rebooting after an update, and
having to boot it back to an older kernel. I ended up re-formatting and
re-installing that server entirely and restoring the system
configuration from backups.
At this point I'd suggest remaining with KVM on Linux as your
hypervisor. It appears to perform better overall than Xen or vSphere and
the cost-effectiveness overall cannot be beat, especially if you are
buying hardware in bulk and using an automated mechanism to deploy your
hardware and the software load upon it so that you don't have to manage
it individually.
If you are looking for overall reliability (at a cost), vSphere is of
course "the" reliable choice (I have some ESXi hosts that have been up
for over 500 days, and the last time they went down was during a planned
outage to rearrange the racks), but it is very picky about its hardware
and likely won't like your current hardware. It can also become somewhat
expensive as you add hosts to your vSphere cluster, which is the basis
of a CloudStack pod (rather than the individual hosts). It's also as
much as 10% slower by my measurements under many workloads because they
make numerous decisions that improve reliability at the expense of
performance. Still, for customers that value reliability above all else,
vSphere is a brick -- reliable and pretty much bullet-proof.